Rodney Metals Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 262 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rodney Metals Corporation and United Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers of America (UE). Case 1-CA-6697
May 1, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On October 13, 1969, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent, Rodney Metals Corporation,
had engaged in certain unfair labor practices as alleged
in the complaint, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as mod-
ified below.
ORDER
Rodney Metals Corporation, Respondent herein.' The
issue litigated was whether Respondent on or about
March 20, 1969, invoked unfounded disciplinary warn-
ings against two employees, Andrew Cosmos.and Thom-
as J. Jadlowe, because of their activities in behalf of
the Union, and in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
Sec- 151, et seq., herein called the Act. Respondent
denied the commission of any unfair labor practice.
Respondent's motions to dismiss the complaint, made
at the end of the hearing, are hereby ruled upon in
accordance with the findings and conclusions herein.'
After the hearing Respondent filed a helpful brief, which
has been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the
witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a California corporation with its principal
place of business in New Bedford, Massachusetts, is
engaged in the fabrication, sale, and distribution of
fabricated metal and related products. Annually
Respondent receives directly from points outside of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts steel, aluminum,
and other goods valued in excess of $50,000. Annually
Respondent ships to points outside of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts fabricated steel products valued in
excess of $50,000. Respondent admitted and I find that
at all times material herein it has been and is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order
of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the
Respondent, Rodney Metals Corporation, New Bedford,
Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified herein:
In paragraph 1(b) of the Recommended Order and
the fourth indented paragraph of the notice, supplant
the word "other" with the words "like or related."
In adopting the Trial Examiner's finding that the disciplinary warning
notices meted out by the Respondent to employees Cosmos and Jadlowe
were motivated for reasons proscribed by Sec 8(a)(1) fo the Act, we
find it unnecessary to reach or adopt his additional rationale based
on his finding that the conduct in question was not shown to have
noticeably interfered with Manuel Brown's work
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALBA B. MARTIN, Trial Examiner: This case, with
all parties represented, was heard before the Trial Exam-
iner in New Bedford, Massachusetts, on July 1, 1969,
on complaint of the General Counsel and answer of
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of
America (UE), herein called the Union, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background: The Organizing Campaign and
Respondent's Opposition Thereto'
The Union started trying to organize the employees
of Respondent in New Bedford in the spring of 1968,
and the campaign was continuing at the time of the'
events herein. The parties stipulated and I find that
Respondent knew that Andrew Cosmos and Thomas
J. Jadlowe were actively organizing in the plant for
the Union. The Union's field organizer testified without
The Union filed the charge on April 30, 1969, and filed the amended
charge on June 9, 1969
R Although the transcript of the record may not in all cases show
it, at the hearing the General Counsel submitted to Respondent's counsel
all affidavits requested during cross-examination of the General Counsel's
witnesses
a This evidence is considered as background evidence for whatever
assistance it gives in casting light upon, clarifying the reason for,
imparting meaning to, and assisting in the evaluation of, the disciplining
of the two employees which was alleged as the unfair labor practice
182 NLRB No. 41
RODNEY METALS CORP 263
contradiction, and I find, that Cosmos and Jadlowe
were the most active employees among the group promot-
ing the Union
Respondent was opposed to the employees' signing
union cards or having a union and told the employees
so in August 1968 On August 27 Respondent's president
sent to or had delivered to employees a letter in which
he cited alleged coercion of an employee by an organizer
for "United Auto Workers " In this letter he stated,
There is no need for you to sign a union
card for United Auto Workers, the United Electrical
Workers, or any other union
We at Rodney Metals do not feel that a union
would be of any benefit to our employees Most
of you have worked at Rodney for many years
and no one has ever paid a penny in dues to
retain his job here at Rodney I hope that this
will always be so
In a letter to employees dated August 29,1968, the
company president said, inter alia,
We firmly believe that neither the UE or the UAW
or any other union can be of benefit to our employ-
ees
Rodney Metals' record and program on wages
and fringe benefits are as good or better than any
other company in the area-we are proud of them-
and no one has ever had to pay a cent in union
dues and assessments to outsiders to gain these
wages and fringe benefits
In addition in several communications in 1968 Respond-
ent's president warned the employees against signing
a union card because they might get saddled with the
Union without an election
B Postlimitation Evidence
In April 1969 Respondent continued the above theme
by sending employees a picture of a blank authorization
card for the Union , and a message alongside reading,
IF YOU SIGN THIS CARD, YOU MAY NEVER
HAVE AN ELECTION IT COMMITS YOU TO
UNION MEMBERSHIP DON'T SIGN AND
KEEP YOUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE i
In April 1969, also, Respondent ' s president spoke
to about 100 employees on company time in the plant
He related the employees ' benefits and emphasized that
Respondent ' s new Blue Cross -Blue Shield plan was as
good or better in benefits than the plan in other union
contract plants in New Bedford including that of 'Morse
Twist Drill "
C The Disciplinary Warnings
On March 20, 1969, Cosmos and Jadlowe were sepa-
rately summoned to Respondent's personnel office and
given warning notices signed by their foreman, John
Barros, and Respondent's personnel director, Donald
Wetmore Present in addition to Barros when Jadlowe
was in the personnel office were a company vice present
and Wetmore In addition Respondent's director of engi-
neering and production, William McLaughlin, had partici-
pated fully in the management investigation , discussions,
and decision to issue the warning notices , as his testimo-
ny revealed Present when Cosmos was officially warned
were at least Foreman Barros and Personnel Director
Wetmore
The separate "warning and notice of offense " handed
to each employee stated that on March 15 , 1956, each
of them had,
interfered with Mr Manuel Brown ' s work during
Mr Brown ' s working hours to the extent that Mr
Brown complained to supervisors
At the top of these warnings , just under the heading
"WARNING AND NOTICE OF OFFENSE," appeared
in capital letters the words,
THIS WARNING NOTICE IS VERY SERIOUS-
YOU WILL BE DISCHARGED IF THIS WARN
ING NOTICE OF OFFENSE IS THE THIRD
SUCH WARNING NOTICE ISSUED TO YOU
WITHIN A TWO (2) YEAR PERIOD
D Substance of the Offense
The "offense' of these two employees was that the
previous Saturday March 15, they had had three brief
conversations an hour apart with Manuel Brown, a
company watchman, about the Union as he was making
his rounds and came near to their work station Cosmos
and Brown and a third employee operated a "Sendzimir
Mill," referred to as the "Z Mill " Brown credibly
testified, and without contradiction, that he makes a
round every hour, each round takes him about 15 to
18 minutes , and in the guard office between rounds
he does anything he wishes, including listening to the
radio and reading newspapers Respondent has only
two guards and only one is on duty at a time
There was much testimony concerning what was done
and said by the two employees and the guard and
exactly when and where I find that solution of the
case does not require resolution of any conflicts as
to whether given statements were made on Brown's
first or second round or where with respect to the
generator room By their demeanor Cosmos, Jadlowe,
and Brown impressed me as credible witnesses doing
their best to recall and relate the conversations of 3if
months earlier They were the only ones who gave
direct testimony concerning these conversations The
third employee on the "Z Mill" was not called to
testify Based upon their testimony and the inherent
probabilities in the situation I find that the conversations
occured substantially as follows
The longest conversation was the first, which occurred
about 11 45 a in when Cosmos and Jadlowe were having
lunch at their regular lunchtime The third operator
was running the 'Z Mill" and they were having lunch
near it They were subject to call by the third operator
if he needed them and they were being paid for their
time, but Respondent permitted them to take time to
eat during their 8-hour day, and they customarily started
doing so at 11 30 a in Either before or after Brown
had "punched ' the clock in the nearby generator room,
but not while he was punching it, Brown and the two
264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees discussed the "Portuguese" dinner they were
having, Brown being • "Portuguese." Cosmos asked
Brown if he was interested in the Union 'and suggested
that he sign a union,card. Brown declined and referred
to how bad the unions were in the "20's and 30's"
They discussed Brown's wages as'of then and as of
when he had started with Respondent, and they discussed
the number of stations,he had to punch.,Brown told
them that' he made more than, the guard at a next
door unionized plant and that the guard over there
had to clean the toilets. Brown mentioned the possibility
that if Respondent's plant became organized Respondent
could discharge the guards and, hire Pinkerton guards
for considerably less wages than Brown was receiving.
Brown observed that "Goodyear" and "Continental
Screw" had done,that. Cosmos borrowed from Jadlowe
and handed to Brown a contract.the Union had with
"Morse Twist Drill" and asked him to read it.
Brown willingly accepted, the Morse contract and
spent some time in the guard office between rounds
looking it over. When he next was in their vicinity
about an hour later, Brown returned the Morse contract
and said substantively that he didn't see any benefits
in it for `him that. he didn't already have, without 'a
union., He' referred specifically to the provisions' in the
Morse, contract relating to.'sick benefits, paid holidays,
vacations, and rates of pay.. Brown indicated that he
was satisfied as things, were with him, without a. union.
On cross-examination Brown credibly testified that this
discussion took about 2 minutes. During this conversa-
tion Cosmos, Jadlowe, and Brown were all on duty,.
During the second conversation Cosmos borrowed
from Jadlowe and handed to Brown a contract between
the Union and another company in the area referred
to as "J. C. Rhodes" and asked hiin to read it. Brown
accepted it willingly and looked at it during his between-
rounds period in the guard office.
On the next round Brown did not return the Rhodes
contract and Cosmos spoke to him only `to the extent
of asking him to return it the next round:' Brown said
that he would, and on the next round he did so.
E. Employees File Grievance
Respondent had a grievance procedure established
by it in the spring. of 1967. , Utilizing this procedure,
on March 22, Cosmos and Jadlowe together filed a
grievance against Barros reading,as follows:
The accusations that we interfered with the work
of Manuel Brown is completely false, and therefore
the warning notices dated 3/20/69 are unjustified.
We insist these warnings be withdrawn and removed
from our records.,
As required under the grievance procedure, on March
26 McLaughlin interviewed' Cosmos and Jadlowe and
heard their version of what took place..He also inter-
viewed Brown, twice;, on March 27 and March 29.
Then on April 1 he reported his, conclusion on the
grievance form as follows:
Based on interviews with the. above (Cosmos and
Jadlowe) plus Mr. Brown, I find that there was
interference. While the discussion may have started
at lunch time, it continued on succeeding rounds
of the watchman.
On April 11 Personnel Manager Wetmore wrote on
the grievance form:
My investigations show that Jadlowe and Cosmos
did interfere with Manual Brown on working time.
Under the grievance procedure Cosmos and Jadlowe
then indicated that they wished to appeal the grievance
to arbitration. They later changed their mind when they
learned they would have to pay for their own lawyer.
F Respondent's Defense, and My Conclusions
1. Although Respondent now asserts that Cosmos
and Jadlowe violated certain of Respondent's employee
rules, the only reason given the employees for warning
them was what was written on the warning notices
themselves. Respondent's director of production,
McLaughlin, testified that he, the general foreman, and
the foreman, Barros, participated in the discussion lead-
ing to the issuance of the warning notices. In addition
Respondent's personnel director was present when each
warning was issued and in addition a company vice
president was present at one of the interviews. Therefore
it may fairly be concluded that Respondent selected
its asserted reason for its actions after due deliberation'.
2. Respondent's asserted, written reason was that
the two employees had interfered with Brown's work
on working time to the extent that Brown complained
to supervisors. I
3. Respondent failed to prove that Brown's work
was noticeably interfered with. Respondent did not prove
that the watchman, Brown, had any duties other than
to make his rounds and punch the stations. As the
events herein occurred between about noon and 3 p.m.
when the plant was in operation, presumably he was
charged with preventing unauthorized persons from being
in the plant and preventing company property from
being stolen. The several minutes he paused on two
rounds to talk to the two employees about the merits
of the 'Union were not shown to have been a serious
intrusion upon his performance of these presumed
duties-particularly as he customarily spent 40 minutes
or more each hour in the guard office and only 20
minutes or less' each hour making each round. Under
all the circumstances I hold that Cosmos and Jadlowe
were engaging in protected union activity.
4. Nor did the proof show that, Brown complained
to supervisors about Cosmos and Jadlowe. Later in
the afternoon of March 15, after Brown's contacts with
the two employees about the Union, Jules Sabo, foreman
in the shipping department, stopped in the guard office
and he and Brown talked. Brown credibly testified that:
Sometimes he'll pass my office. He'll step in and
tell me a little joke or something. So, in the conver-
sation I told him, I says, "Hey, Jules . . . the
Union is at the door. He says, "Oh, ya, . . . it's
about that time. They come around every year."
Brown told Sabo that Cosmos and Jadlowe had tried
to interest him in the Union and tried to get him to
RODNEY METALS CORP
join Brown credibly testified that he did not complain
to Sabo about this, but simply reported it Respondent
did not call Sabo as a witness and he was not shown
to have been absent or unavailable
In addition the substance of Brown's testimony
showed that Brown was not in a complaining mood
concerning the effort to interest him in the Union Thus
he willingly entered into the discussion about the Union,
willingly accepted and read two contracts (or parts of
them), and took the initiative on the second round
to discuss the Morse contract and how in his view
it held nothing for him If he had felt any resentment
at the approach toward him, he would have acted and
spoken differently
Two days later, according to Brown's credited testimo-
ny, his foreman, Almeida, telephoned him at his home
at night, told him he had heard about "this union activi-
ty" from Sabo, asked how come Sabo knew about
it and Almeida didn't, and asked Brown what had hap-
pened Brown confirmed that "they were trying to get
me to join the Union " This testimony suggests not
that Brown was complaining to Almeida but that Almeida
was complaining to Brown that he, Brown ' s foreman,
had not been told about this organizing effort, and
that the supervisor was interrogating the employee about
the union rumor Almeida was not called as a witness
and was not shown to have been unavailable
The only testimony in the entire record suggesting
that Brown had complained to a supervisor was the
testimony of McLaughlin, director of engineering and
production, that Foreman John Barros reported to him
that he overhead Brown tell Sabo that he couldn't make
his rounds without being bothered Upon the entire
record, and particularly as Respondent neither called
Sabo nor Barros to the witness stand nor showed them
to be unavailable, I do not give this testimony controlling
weight and I find that Brown did not complain to Sabo
or any other supervisors 4
5 Production Director McLaughlin's testimony estab-
lished that in his investigation of the matter prior to
the management decision to issue the warning notices,
he learned that some of the conversations between
Brown and the two employees occurred after Cosmos
and Jadlowe had finished eating and while they were,
therefore, back' at work Specifically he learned that
when Brown returned with the Morse contract on the
second round, Brown discussed "the ten paid holidays,
the $60 a week sick benefit and the fact that Rodney
had no union ' Although he must have known that
at this point in time Cosmos and Jadlowe were working,
the record is devoid of any suggestion by anyone in
management that Brown should be given a warning
notice for interfering with the work of Cosmos and
Jadlowe on their working time
4 In view of the conclusions reached in items numbered 3 and 4
above Respondent s additional defense that the two employees interfered
with Brown s rights is ill founded Under Sec 7 of the Act Brown
had the right to refrain from joining or assisting the Union He exercised
this right freely and without interference or coercion
265
6 In contrast to its disciplining of Cosmos and Jad-
lowe allegedly for interfering with Brown , Respondent
permitted much solicitation for approved organizations
and causes on company time , which must have interfered
with the work of employees For a company-employee
organization called the Ven-Rod Club, during 1968 and
1969 Cosmos solicited memberships throughout the plant
on company time , including solicitations of supervisors
The club conducts raffles in the plant for televisions,
turkeys, etc , and Cosmos has sold raffle tickets on
company time throughout the plant Other employees,
also, were shown to have sold raffle tickets During
working time Cosmos has asked his foreman , John Bar-
ros, to buy a raffle ticket Jadlowe credibly testified
that on working time in the plant he has bought raffle
tickets from employees Also, at Christmastime, a com
pany vice president uses the supervisors to solicit
employee orders for liquor at cost As all of this has
been openly going on for years it must be occurring
with the approval of management
7 In addition, solicitation by employees and some
by supervisors occurs in the plant on company time
for organizations not shown to be connected with
Respondent , and this, too, must interfere with the work
of employees The day before he testified a foreman
asked Cosmos during working time if he wanted to
make his monthly contribution to a Catholic organization
Cosmos testified this happens monthly In April 1969
Cosmos solicited about six employees in different depart-
ments to join a private golf club His testimony suggested
that at least one of these was a leadman Jadlowe's
testimony showed that in 1968 and 1969 other employees
solicited in the plant on company time for a "Cape
Verdian benefit dance," for the private golf club, for
chocolates for the "Fair Haven Little League," and
for candy in a tin for an undisclosed beneficiary
8 Respondent had a broad no -solicitation rule which
prohibited solicitations "for any purpose whatsoever
at any time on the premises unless authorized by manage-
ment " This rule was presumptively invalid because
it did not limit the prohibition to working time The
preponderance of the evidence makes it quite evident
that this rule was not strictly enforced In the absence
of any proof it cannot be assumed that solicitations
for the benefit dance, the private golf club, the Little
League, or even the monthly solicitations for a Catholic
organization by a foreman had the official approval
of management pursuant to the rule But Respondent
must have known about it and condoned it, because
it was done openly and even a foreman engaged in
it
9 It thus appears , and I conclude , that if violation
of the rule was in any way involved in the disciplining
of Cosmos and Jadlowe, as Respondent's brief suggested
it was, it was a discriminatory enforcement of the rule
because they were soliciting for the Union, which activity
did not meet with company approval and which went
counter to Respondent's antiunion campaign shown
above Further, I conclude that alleged violation of
this rule had nothing to do with Respondent ' s issuance
of the warning notices because Respondent made no
266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mention of this rule in the warning notices or in inter-
views with the two employees.
10. Respondent's brief suggested that the conduct
of Cosmos and Jadlowe violated another company rule
which prohibited " performing personal work of any
nature during your regular working hours." The record
established that Cosmos initiated the subject of the
Union during his regular lunch period and that during
the next round when the lunch period of Cosmos and
Jadlowe was over, it was Brown who did most of
the talking. Further, Cosmos and Jadlowe were not
performing any personal work when they were soliciting
Brown to join the Union; they were engaging in protected
union activity. Further, this rule was not referred to
in the warning notices or in interviews with the two
employees.
11. Respondent seems to defend its action on the
further ground that the two employees violated another
company rule which prohibited the distribution of "writ-
ten or printed matter of any description on company
premises unless approved by management." There was
no showing that this rule was ever enforced against
the sale and distribution of raffle tickets, which must
have had written or printed material on them. Further
this rule was not referred to in the warning notices
or in interviews with the two employees Further it
does not appear to me that handing over two contracts
was "distribution" within the meaning of the rule; and
if it was Respondent permitted Brown to do it with
impunity.
12. Production Director McLaughlin testified that dur-
ing the past 2 years and 10 months, the time he has
been with the Company, Respondent has issued no
warning notices for violations of any of the company
rules asserted in its defense and he knows of no such
warning notices in the last 5 years.
13. Finally Respondent defends on the ground that
it was willing to submit the matter to arbitration. Under
all the circumstances of this case I hold that this willing-
ness does not bar the Board from processing this unfair
labor practice case.
14. Final conclusions: During the Union' s organizing
drive and while Respondent abandoned neutrality and
engaged in a counterunion campaign with letters to
employees and a speech by Respondent's president,
it disciplined the Union's most active employee leaders
for something they allegedly did while they were engaging
in protected union activity. As in fact they did not
do what Respondent accused them of, the warning
notices were undeserved and unfounded. As it is unlikely
that Respondent would give these warnings for no reason
at all, and as the only remaining possible reason apparent
in the record is the union activity, I find on the preponder-
ance of the evidence that it did so because of their
union activity and in order to deter other employees
from joining or assisting the Union. Respondent's action
occurred in a plant where, to the obvious knowledge
of employees, much solicitation has occurred on working
time for years and continues to occur at intervals for
numerous causes, involving some supervisors; with the
obvious knowledge and approval or condonation of man-
agement ; and with no apparent effort by management
to stop it and no warnings given any employees for
engaging in it. And of course the employees knew
Respondent was opposed to the Union. Disciplining
these two employee union leaders under these circum-
stances was clearly discriminatory and obviously tended
to deter other employees, who'might wish to, from
joining or assisting the Union and thereby tended to
weaken or destroy the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act. (See N L.R.B. v. Burnup and Sims, Inc.,
379 U.S. 21.) Upon the preponderance of the evidence
in the entire record considered as a whole I find and
hold that Respondent's action in disciplining Cosmos
and Jadlowe as it did interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the rights guaranteed in Section
7, and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)
(1) of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
I recommend the customary broad cease-and-desist
order and the affirmative relief conventionally ordered
in cases of this nature, where Respondent's unfair labor
practices were of a character which struck at the roots
of employee rights safeguarded by the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Rodney Metals Corporation, of New Bedford, Mas-
sachusetts, is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of
America is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily disciplining Andrew Cosmos
and Thomas J.Jadlowe because of their union activities,
while per or condoning solicitations for other
activities and causes on working time in the plant,
Respondent interfered with, restrained,' and coerced
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby violated Section
8(a)(1).
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RODNEY METALS CORP 267
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the preponderance of
the evidence in the entire record considered as a whole,
I recommend that Rodney Metals Corporation, of New
Bedford, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) Discriminatortly disciplining employees because
of their union activities
ed Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith '
' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board this provision shall be modified to read Notify said Regional
Director in writing within 10 days from the date of this Order what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist any labor organization, to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all such activity except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment
as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified
by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959
2 Take the following affirmative action, which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Remove from all personnel files and all other
files and records kept by Respondent, all copies of
and references to the warning notices given Andrew
Cosmos and Thomas J Jadlowe on March 20, 1969,
and the incidents giving rise to them
(b) Mail or deliver individual letters to Andrew Cos-
mos and Thomas J Jadlowe informing them that the
warning notices given them on March 20, 1969, and
all references to them and the incidents giving rise
to them, are withdrawn, expunged, and removed from
all company personnel files and all other files and records
(c) Post at its plant in New Bedford, Massachusetts,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "s
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region I (Boston, Massachusetts), after
being duly signed by Respondent's authorized represent-
ative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily post-
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board
the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order
herein shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations
be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and
order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be
changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgement of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL withdraw, expunge, and remove from
all company personnel files and all other files and
records, all copies of and references to the warning
notices given Andrew Cosmos and Thomas J Jad
]owe on March 20, 1969, and the incidents giving
rise to them
WE WILL mail or deliver individual letters to
Andrew Cosmos and Thomas J Jadlowe informing
them that the warning notices given them on March
20, 1969, and all references to them and the incidents
giving rise to them, are withdrawn, expunged, and
removed from all company personnel files and all
other files and records
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily discipline employ
ees because of their union activities
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exer
cise of the right to self -organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist United Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the pur
poses of collective bargaining or any other mutual
aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all
such activities except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring member
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,
as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959
All our employees are free to become, remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining members of United
Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE),
or of any other labor organization
268
Dated By
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RODNEY METALS This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
CORPORATION days from the date of posting and must not be altered
(Employer)
defaced, or covered by any other material
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
(Representative ) (Title)
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 20th Floor, John F Kennedy Federal Building,
This is an official notice and must not be defaced Cambridge & New Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachu-
by anyone setts 02203, Telephone 617-233-3300